UMED DISTRICT PLAN ADOPTED MARCH 8, 2016 A.O. 2015-140 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Mayor Ethan Berkowitz ANCHORAGE ASSEMBLY UMED DISTRICT PLAN STEERING TEAM MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE Dick Traini, Chair Allison Fong, PAMC PLANNING DEPARTMENT Elvi Gray-Jackson, Vice Chair Andrew Romerdahl, PAMC Hal H. Hart, AICP, Director Amy Demboski Andy Josephson, Representative AK Legislature Carol Wong, Manager, Long-Range Planning Division Bill Evans Ben Hahn, Dean of Students, APU Kristine Bunnell, Senior Planner | Project Manager Patrick Flynn Bryan Yackel, TLO Susan Perry, Principal Office Associate Ernie Hall Carolyn Ramsey, AHCC Paul Honeman Christopher Turletes, UAA Jennifer Johnston Dennis Weston, Superintendent MYC PRIME CONSULTANT: Pete Petersen Don Bantz, Ph.D, President APU Bill Starr Douglas Eby, SCF Tim Steele Geran Tarr, Representative AK Legislature Ruth Todd, FAIA, AICP, LEED AP Jacob Gondek, UACC Eleanor Cox, Cultural Resources Planner James Sears, MBA, SCF Miriam Aranoff, Cultural Resources Planner ANCHORAGE PLANNING AND ZONING Carolyn Ramsey, AHCC Christina Dikas, Architectural Historian COMMISSION John Morrison, TLO Jeffrey Rhoads, Architect, LEED AP, Affiliated Consultant John R Faunce, UAA David J. Neuman, FAIA, Affiliated Consultant Tyler Robinson, Chair Lonne Mansell, UAA Tony Cange, Vice Chair Mike Abbott, ASD Stacey Dean Paul Stang, UACC PARTNERED FIRMS: Andre Spinelli Robert Honeycutt, PAMC Brandon Spoerhase Robert Wilson, ANTHC Jon Spring Stephanie Mormilo, MOAPW Gregory Strike Steve Lindbeck, AKTV Brandon Walker Steve Rafuse, MOA PARKS ii | | UMED District Plan | March 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3. VISION ELEMENTS 5. APPENDIX 1.1 Plan Purpose and Planning Team 2 Creating the Vision 30 Appendix Contents 86 1.2 Plan Summary 2 3.1 Supporting Organizational Missions 31 Introduction 87 1.3 Plan Priorities 3 3.2 Quality of Life 35 5.1 Case Study: Transportation Demand Management 88 3.3 Quality of the Built Environment 39 5.2 Case Study: Mixed Use Development 102 2. INTRODUCTION UMED DISTRICT Design Guidelines 42 5.3 Case Study: Natural Resources 124 2.1 Location 6 3.4 Transportation and Mobility 47 5.4 Example: Town Gown Relationships 129 2.2 Purpose of the Plan Update 6 3.5 Community & Partnerships 53 5.5 Example: Night Lighting 134 2.3 Vision Elements 8 3.6 Natural Resources 55 5.6 Example: Fresh Food Access 135 2.4 Methodology 9 3.7 Economic Sustainability 61 5.7 Cogeneration 2013 Executive Summary 137 2.5 Context 18 3.8 Growth & Change 63 5.8 Supporting Documents Summary 139 2.6 Challenges and Opportunities 23 UMED DISTRICT Land Use Plan Map 67 6. ENDNOTES/FIGURE CREDITS/ 4. IMPLEMENTATION ACRONYMS 4.1 Implementation Matrix 76 Endnotes - Figure Credits - Acronyms 143 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Plan Purpose and Planning Team 1.2 Plan Summary 1.3 Plan Priorities EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 PLAN PURPOSE AND PLANNING TEAM The planning team met with the UMED organizations, student 1.2 PLAN SUMMARY groups, community councils, and the public through several This plan was funded by an Alaska Legislative grant at the Good planning leads to healthy communities by striking the workshops and one-on-one interviews. A detailed overview of request of the UMED District organizations, and completed right balance of services, economic and physical development, the public outreach process is included in Methodology-Section in partnership with the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA). The aesthetics, and recreational opportunities. The Plan Update 2.4. purpose of the plan was to achieve specific goals defined in the presents a cohesive strategy that integrates these aspects grant request. as they relate to the UMED District. The District Plan Update This plan presents visions, goals, recommendations, and includes the following sections: implementation items related to the built environment, natural The primary purpose of the 2016 District Plan Update (District areas, transportation systems, recreational opportunities, • Introduction: The introduction sets the District’s Plan Update) is to assess current needs and to identify future economic development, and organizational support. The plan boundaries and further discusses the purpose of the actions and land use changes to address those needs. is intended to provide a framework for future actions to be Plan Update. This Plan Update will replace the 2003 Planning updates for the UMED District are recommended on taken by the Municipality of Anchorage, the UMED District U-MED Universities and Medical District Framework a five-year basis to re-ground the thinking and development organizations, developers, residents, and community partners. Master Plan (2003 UMED Plan). The Public in the district, identify new strategies and programs for participation process is also summarized. implementation, and to engage the community in an open The plan also includes an updated land use plan map which public process.1 • Context: The context describes the setting, planning amends the Anchorage Bowl land use plan map that will guide considerations, master planning processes, UMED future development. The multimodal transportation system and transportation system, natural resources including The UMED organizations include Alaska Public Media Transportation Demand Management program is encouraged. parks and lakes, trail and pedestrian system, and (KAKM), Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC), Watershed and natural resource protection, trail and park the involvement of the various stakeholders within Alaska Pacific University (APU), Alaska Psychiatric Institute planning and management is supported. the UMED. Planning influences include the proposed (API), Anchorage School District (ASD), McLaughlin Youth Northern Access Road, increasing density, infill Center (MYC), Providence Alaska Medical Center (PAMC), The plan encourages master plan development, mixed-use and mixed-use development, the Chester Creek Southcentral Foundation (SCF), Trust Land Office (TLO), and commercial, retail and housing development, and helps Watershed Plan, and MOA Title 21. the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA). The organizations maintain stable neighborhoods. The plan defines the sensitive provided staff representatives to the UMED District Steering • This section natural landscape and distills the “sense of place” that defines Challenges and Opportunities: Team, along with project partners including several Alaska discusses existing conditions and viable the District. Legislators and the Airport Heights, Rogers Park, and University opportunities for: ongoing development of the Area Community Councils. educational, medical, and public service offerings, The plan will be implemented by: District Plan Update parks, trails, public land management strategies, recommendations, master plans, Anchorage Wetlands The Municipality of Anchorage began working with Page parking, and the multi-modal transportation system. Management Plan, Chester Creek Watershed Plan, Metropolitan & Turnbull (prime consultant), Kittelson & Associates, RSA Transportation Plan, University Lake Park Master Plan, MOA Engineering, and Strategic Economics to prepare the UMED Capital Improvement Program, and legislative requests. District Plan Update in the spring of 2013. 2 | Executive Summary | UMED District Plan | March 2016 The desire for more food options, stable neighborhoods with • The Examples cover topics important to the area, but It is anticipated that additional funding will be necessary to housing choices and redevelopment opportunities, and the contain less detailed analysis than the case studies. upgrade the level of management at this park and for proposed perception of public versus privately held lands was considered They cover the topic of town-gown relationships, mitigation elements that may come from the Park Master plan. in many of the recommendations. The UMED District is well night lighting, and fresh food access. The Cogen The Chester Creek Watershed Plan will also be considered positioned to capitalize on its many strengths and opportunities Report executive summary gives an overview of the during this Park Master planning process scheduled for fall to continue toward sustained growth, expanded education and technology, cost analysis and recommendations. 2015. MOA Park staff supports this recommendation. research opportunities, and the provision of world-class medical Cogen is financially feasible in the UMED District services. with a change in the ML&P Tariff, which is further 2. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT STUDY • The Vision Elements contain eight explained in the Cogen Report. Vision Elements: Traffic management and parking were also discussed at length specific subject areas: Supporting Organizational • The Supporting Supporting Documents: during the planning process. The parking analysis completed by Missions, Quality of Life, Quality of the Built Documents report is a separate publication that Kittelson & Associates found that there is adequate parking in Environment, Transportation & Mobility, Community contains an in-depth summary of various existing the District. With the latest parking information, the transportation & Partnerships, Natural Resources, Economic conditions within the District. The analysis presented focus shifted from parking to roads, trails, pedestrian amenities, Sustainability, and Growth & Change. This chapter in this document provided beneficial information transit and shuttle services. describes each Vision Element, recommendations critical to shaping the Plan Update.